"I have no idea why I'm being handcuffed," he told the gaggle of reporters who had followed him. "They won't tell anybody what I did wrong. What rally specifically do I get to peacefully protest?"

A crowd of Barrett supporters formed around the Walker supporter, yelling "Why agitate the people?" and "Bye-bye!" as he was led into a police car.

A police officer on the scene would not say why the man had been arrested.

The man has been identified in previous news stories as David Willoughby, a swimming coach at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He stood in the middle of the crowd at the Clinton/Barrett rally holding a tall sign and was repeatedly asked by volunteers to move. One volunteer asked him to "move to the left of the press." Willoughby refused.

His presence, which was vocal, angered many in the crowd, especially when he yelled "Tell me how you're going to create jobs!" repeatedly as Barrett and Clinton spoke. He argued with Barrett supporters for the duration of the rally and even drew attention from speakers on the stage; Democratic Party of Wisconsin chairman Mike Tate mentioned him twice. One man in the crowd said he would "take him out," and a woman told him "I'm a union thug and you're ignorant as hell!"

Quite aside from the free speech rights, it's stupid to arrest someone in this situation. Now, he's the story, instead of Clinton rallying for Barrett. And the police are the story. The Milwaukee police. The Madison police didn't treat protesters/counter-protesters this way. And you know something about Milwaukee? Its mayor is Tom Barrett.

I am sure if the arrested protester did anything that made him look bad the Dems will put it up on YouTube in the next 10 minutes because I am sure 20 cell phone cameras were on him. If not, then he didn't do anything wrong.

The guy's last name is Willoughby. I wonder if he's related to the young lady who was heckled at the rally last year, Tricia if I recall.

Seems he was argumentative. At a rally. Imagine that. The crowd seemed quite delighted that he was being arrested. Not exactly covering themselves in glory. Unless there's something missing, this is pretty bad.

I tend to think that people holding their own rally ought to get to hold their own "peaceful assembly" in peace. I've got no sympathy, for example, for the Occupy *ssholes that think it's their "free speech" right to disrupt or shut down a pro-Israel speaker, or any of the idiots on campuses that declare victory when they send an invited guest packing.

But this isn't the Kingdom of Julie and, you know, vuvuselas.

"Arrested for protesting without a vuvusela" (as Chip S said) is short and pithy and memorable.

I was on Willoughby's side until I read that he was shouting over the speakers at the rally. I don't have any problem with him standing his ground, holding a sign, speaking to people around him, or even shouting if there is no organized speaking going on but I really don't think that 'freedom of speech' includes interrupting the peaceful assembly and speech of other groups.

Do you know what peaceable assembly means? Do you understand that people are protected from the government interfering with peaceful assembly? Are so much of an idiot that you don't understand that a single private citizen being verbally annoying cannot in any way jeopardize the rights of anyone to peaceably assemble?

Is that the constitutional rule you have chosen to apply? Is that the altar of liberty and freedom on which we are asked to sacrifice our children in war?

Constitutional rights are not absolute. They have to be balanced (need I bring up the standard "Fire!" in a theater example?).

Is it your belief that anyone can interrupt any meeting in a public location and simply claim that they are excercising their freedom of speech? How to you square that with the other groups' right to assemble?

My tolerance for 'freedom of speech' is maximized in impromptu public settings but as you move towards more organized events and/or private settings I think the control should shift to the organizers and not to the protestors. There should not be a hecklers veto.

Am I to understand that you think Willoughby's one man protest is an example of peaceful assembly that must not be infringed? How to you come to the conclusion that his claim at that particular time and place is greater than the claim of the larger group that organized the event? Do you not think that there rights need to be protected also?

Do you imagine that the Constitution simply prohibits any attempt to balance the competing groups excercise of speach and assembly? It is just a free for all with no balancing mechanism at all?

Is it your belief that anyone can interrupt any meeting in a public location and simply claim that they are excercising their freedom of speech?

Yes. Without question. A campaign event in a wholly public space has no more merit than an annoying person in the same public space. Go have your event in a private space, or in a city property, such as a council chamber, where there are rules that govern decorum.

Why does the public space belong to the campaign only? That's ludicrous.

"My tolerance for 'freedom of speech' is maximized in impromptu public settings but as you move towards more organized events and/or private settings I think the control should shift to the organizers and not to the protestors. There should not be a hecklers veto."

This was a free event that was open to the public. If it was a ticketed event (can still be free) then I would agree with you.

Politicians have been heckled forever. If one guy can disrupt your event and become the story, then you have lost. Successful politicians know how to neutralize a single heckler and turn it in their favor. Resorting to arrest creates a martyr, opens the politician up to ridicule (don't tase me, bro!) and shows weakness.

How to you come to the conclusion that their claim at that particular time and place is greater than the claim of a single person who did not organize an event? Do you not think that his [sic] rights need to be protected also?

There should not be a balancing test for free speech in a purely public space, Justice O'Connor.

That's just ridiculous. You can't even hear what the guy is saying over the loud music and he's really nowhere near the stage.

Yet there are the tolerant, compassionate lefties shouting "lock him up" when he's not doing anything nearly as bad as they and their ilk have been doing to the governor and Republican legislators and conservatives for the past 16 months.

Tosaguy's video doesn't show the guy shouting down the speakers; it shows Walker opponents screaming "retard" at him.

I wonder if Led Zeppelin gave permission for these people to use "Houses of the Holy"; and why they'd use that particular song. From the appearance of the crowd, there are several other more appropriate Zeppelin songs they could have featured: Tangerine; Custard Pie; Hot Dog; Candy Store Rock.

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the event was scheduled in some manner. Lots of public locations have mechanisms for reserving space for public events. It is in that context that I think that individuals or other groups should not be able to disrrupt an organized event.

Even in a public space that isn't 'reserved', I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a couple counter-protestors with megaphones (for example) have a constitutionally protected right to interrupt and disrrupt the gathering.

"Even in a public space that isn't 'reserved', I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a couple counter-protestors with megaphones (for example) have a constitutionally protected right to interrupt and disrrupt the gathering."

-- It's not classy to do it, but they can. Hence why to stop ghouls like Westboro Baptist, you have to find counter-protest groups to protect people at funerals. It doesn't make it morally right to picket a funeral and yell God hates your dead kid -- but if it is on public land, then they can be assholes in public.

"Even in a public space that isn't 'reserved', I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a couple counter-protestors with megaphones (for example) have a constitutionally protected right to interrupt and disrrupt the gathering."

The dude had no megaphone. He has a sign and one voice. The police could have moved him along without arresting him. The crowd could have come up with a chant to drown him out. Did the guy get his kicks out of annoying a crowd -- he certain did. Does he have a bit D-bay in him -- most certainly. But it was the impotence of the assembled crowd and the speakers that gave him the power to rule the day.

Leslyn said Nice preconceptions. Once again, Milwaukee Police and Fire are Walker supporters. They are exempted in Act 10 from the increased benefit and pension contributions.

I called them thugs, which if nothing else turns up in a video would be accurate, without regard to which candidate their union supports.

You seem to always miss the distinction between what a union believes, and what its individual members believe. A distinction that is becoming more clear as union members ditch the unions as soon as it is possible.

Bailey said: Who would have ever thought that if you yelled at everyone around you at a rally for an hour, and then approach a rope line with a former president, and refuse to move, you might be arrested!

Certainly no one who watch all of the thugs last year in Madison. E.g. the hecklers cursing at a 14 year old. Hecklers yelling at the Governor while he is with Special Olympians.

Wasn't one of the leftish commenters here commenting on how Romney wasn't appearing with Walker? I think it's kind of funny that although the President has fundraisers in MN and IL today, he couldn't fit in any time for Mayor Barrett.

So? I was extrapolating from the argument that Seven Machos and you are making. Presumably your belief that no group can monopolize public space doesn't suddenly change when the opposing group shows up with voice amplifying electronics, right?

I'm completely aware of groups like Westboro Baptist. I think that even they are careful to not physically invade the space of the other groups. They might be nearby but I think that is a distinctily different situtation than two groups trying to occupy the same (public) space.

(I would be enjoying this little debate more if I didn't have to think so hard about the blogger verification words!)

"I was on Willoughby's side until I read that he was shouting over the speakers at the rally. I don't have any problem with him standing his ground, holding a sign, speaking to people around him, or even shouting if there is no organized speaking going on but I really don't think that 'freedom of speech' includes interrupting the peaceful assembly and speech of other groups."

It's certainly rude. I don't think he kept anyone from hearing, but I'm sure they didn't come to here *him*, they came to hear Clinton.

In the Kingdom of Julie (and I'd be a horrific autocrat) "peacefully assemble" would mean you get to assemble in peace. But, you know... vuvuselas.

The rules, whatever they are, ought to be the same for everyone. If people get to show up with noise makers, not even speech!, but pots and pans and vuvuselas, for no purpose other than to make enough noise that their opponents CAN'T speak...

Upset over the fatal terrorist bombing of a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia June 25, in which 19 Americans died, Patricia Mendoza allegedly told the president as he shook hands with members of the crowd Tuesday, "You suck, and those boys died."

The U.S. Secret Service, which asked Chicago police to take the Westchester couple into custody over the incident, said the action was justified.

Apparently they were charged under some Cook County law. Later the county dropped the case, but Chicago then charged them with disorderly conduct. (I don't know the final resolution on those charges.)

"I'm completely aware of groups like Westboro Baptist. I think that even they are careful to not physically invade the space of the other groups. They might be nearby but I think that is a distinctily different situtation than two groups trying to occupy the same (public) space."

It would indeed be a fun debate. In a polite world, I would agree with you, but it isn't a polite world and it isn't a fair world. The Barrett side had the opportunity to take care of the issue at their level (crowd chants, etc) but didn't. Instead, Tom Barrett's cops got involved because some folks could not tolerate a single dissenting voice in a public space.

I was there. As much as we would like to believe, unfortunately this story is not true. The gentleman just like everyone else was asked to lower his sign when the speakers took the podium, so that people could see. He refused. At the end when Mr. Clinton was shaking hands with the audience the gentleman walked over and got in his face with the sign, saying slurs. It was a true embarrassment not freedom of speech.

Are you suggesting that, at the Tea Party rally where the Willoughby girl was met with pounding pots and pans and vususelas, that all that was required was for the person introducing her to say, "Okay, everyone, please stop making noise so everyone can hear our next speaker," and then everyone would have been required to stop making noise? Or perhaps the thing that should have happened during the governors presentation to the mentally disadvantaged youth, is that people should have simply been asked not to stand in front of them? And then they'd have been required to behave in a civil manner?

I've only visited WI once (unfortunately) but I can see why there might be an adiposity situation what with all the fish frys and frozen custard and butter dipped butter. Still, you are police officers and you should consider looking the part as well as playing it.

"My husband and I were at the rally standing six feet from him 15 minutes before the rally began, during, and when he was arrested as the rally ended," she writes. "Even before the rally began he was screaming at people near him that held recall signs. Get out the vote volunteers flanked him to make sure he was safe even as he was screaming at people and acting as if he could hit people with his sign.

"An elderly woman asked him to have some manners so she could hear the speakers. He became more belligerent, and when the president took the stage, he became louder with non-stop yelling at people in his close proximity and at the president. You could not hear the president anymore as the guy was yelling at everyone around him and the president."

Hilariously incredible bullshit. "Get out the vote volunteers flanked him to make sure he was safe even as he was screaming at people and acting as if he could hit people with his sign." Sure they did. He was "screaming" and possibly violent and yet the fraudsters, excuse me, "get out the vote" people, were just looking out for his safety. Feh.

Reality translation: Useless tools surrounded him and tried to intimidate him but it didn't work.

How many times in the past year and a half have we seen video and photos here of progressive hordes trying to drown out a dissenting point of view? Surrounding people, getting in their face per the boss's orders. Sometimes daily. It's the entitled progressive's modus operandi, free speech for me but not for thee, and phony recharacterization is ludicrous.

I can empathize with this guy. I was almost arrested for heckling former California Governor Gray Davis during the 2004 Democratic Party Convention by the Boston Police.

I was out at lunch wandering around downtown Boston looking for trouble. I saw a crowd on people waiting outside a restaurant. I overheard people saying that Hilary Clinton was in the restaurant along with other Democrat bigshots.

When Davis came out he got a round of cheers (it is Boston, after all). So I started in on a chant of "Ah-nold!", "Ah-nold!", "Ah-nold!". Then I switched to, "Girly Man!", "Girly Man".

There was a guy out in front of the restaurant who was trying to herd the throng. He comes up to me and says, "OK, you've made your point! Move on." I said, "That's your opinion, and opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

Well, he flew into a rage, "You calling me an asshole?" He grabbed my arm and started to push me back against a wall. Thinking he was some Democrat flunky I was about to punch him out, but I saw other uniformed cops rushing over, so I figured he was BPD.

It turns out he was and tried to reach into my pocket. "Do you have any ID?" I grabbed his hand and said, "I'd be glad to show you my ID if you take your hand out of my pocket." So they run my license to see if I have any warrants, of course I didn't.